Contact the Authors: “Tiger Tom®” Ehrhart and Chuck King

The following explanations, facts and plots provide supporting details for the article published in Tiger East/Alpines East Rootes Review and other marque newsletters.

The additional charts on this site illustrate some of the more significant variables we were able to quantify. Our intent is to show the more significant differences of the various variables we measured.

Our Appeal

We ran out of hot weather and our testing is incomplete. However, these tests have helped identify the key areas for improving cooling on a Tiger and Alpine as well. Building on the variety of information and experience gained, we can now focus on more specific objectives to improve cooling.

In the Summer of 2001, we are prepared to identify and quantify more specific improvements. We plan to test a variety of Fans/Radiators/Pulleys/Water pumps/Shrouds/Air restriction and ideas that you make available to us. The ideas can come any time. But we need the physical items for typically a couple of weeks in the heat of the summer so we can include them in our comparison test. We will do our best to coordinate testing with the availability of the components.

General Test Program Notes

1. Idle tests were run until engine temperature reached approximately 215 ° F, the point at which the fuel began to boil in the carburetor fuel bowl and affect the idle speed, AND/OR the temperature stabilized within one degree for three consecutive two minute measurement intervals.

Air Flow Enhancement

1. A Ford C9DZ-8600-A Maverick 6 cyl cut down to 14″ diameter was used for most of the testing. It is our opinion that the actual idle temperatures and times would have been lower and longer respectively throughout the tests if a more standard 15″ Maverick fan had been used. However the outcomes of the various tests clearly identify significant improvements even when using the 14″ fan.
2. An enclosed fan shroud fabricated from a Ford Taurus shroud was used for much of the testing in this test program while using a 14″ Maverick fan. Airflow testing shows an enclosed shroud does improve airflow through the radiator. Our enclosed shroud was not as deep (front to back) as a stock shroud. This provided an improved axial and radial position relationship with the fan blade over stock with respect to radiator/fan gap and blade tip and shroud edge. We also know that a 15″ fan can flow considerably more air than a 14″ fan. We ran out of hot weather and were not able to incorporate the enclosure principles into a stock shroud and test with a larger diameter 15″ fan. We are not providing data on this arrangement because the fabrication modifications of a stock shroud and performance measurements have not been completed.
3. Airflow testing of the Derale # 17015 fan indicated its performance was significantly superior to all other fans tested. Unfortunately we were unable to compare its performance at idle and interstate speeds because the hot weather left us. We know it performs better and recommended it accordingly. We plan to quantify its performance in the summer of 2001.
4. The sheet metal brace located across the lower front of the radiator obstructs approximately 10% of the radiator surface area, about three rows of tubes. We recommend it be removed. We have done some testing without this brace obstructing the radiator. Our best results are without this brace in place. The addition of additional bracing and a deflector at the base of the radiator to the bottom of the valance are believed to offer improved cooling. However, we have not done a comparison test at idle or interstate speeds to quantify the effect. We plan to do a comparison test in the summer of 2001.
5. Engine compartment venting: Using streamers to identify air flow at idle, we observed large amounts of hot air EXITING the engine compartment and reentering the front of the radiator from two distinct sources. The openings in front of the horns and the gap between the radiator and crossmember.
   At highway speed the openings in front of the horns adversely effect cooling because air is forced to ENTER the engine compartment. Consequently air expelled from the radiator is reduced because it must compete with the additional volume of air to exit an already restricted engine compartment. Blocking the opening in front of the horns is a valid old time Tiger cooling improvement that should be first on the “To do” list.

Plot interpretation

These plots are intended to demonstrate specific issues as explained by comments with each plot. Values and differences shown on the plots are for reference purposes only. They indicate significant difference(s) or interactions between a given variable or variables as measured. The reader should not attempt to extrapolate data for any reason from a plot. There are significant testing factors that must be factored into the meaning of the data that may not be apparent to the reader. For this reason, the reader is encouraged to contact the authors for additional explanations or detailed test data used to create the plots. Our interpretation is provided for each plot. Of course, you may have some of your own………but be careful.

In general, the plots clearly show that there is no one fix for cooling a Tiger. Efficient cooling requires a balanced cooling system design related to water and air management. It is a common practice in the Tiger community to focus on radiators for improved cooling. Clearly, as evidenced from our results, radiators, high tech or Godzilla monster of any kind do not provide significant cooling improvement with out lots of airflow. Our studies support the need for improved airflow. Airflow is a complex process of interactions between the radiator, fan, shroud and overall body constraints. We have made strides in identifying key areas to improve and have noted them in this report.

Improved Tiger cooling can be expected over a stock cooling system when a variable shown on a plot that produced significant improvement is incorporated in a Tiger, but the magnitude may be different than that shown on the plot. Maximum cooling will be achieved when all the changes listed in the Summary of results are implemented.

Reminder

When evaluating your cars cooling performance, verify the temperature sending unit, instrument voltage regulator and gauge provide accurate results as a system before making decisions, bragging or complaining about effectiveness of your cooling system.

General Plot Notes

When reviewing the plots, keep the following in mind:

1. Many plots show only the upper portion of the temperature/time spectrum since the purpose is to only compare differences at the extremes (temperature and Time).
2. The test # provides traceability to detailed test data used to create plots.
3. Some plots have multiple variables with emphasis only on the most significant outcome. Remember, each test measurement evaluated only one variable. The reader should contact the authors if additional interpretation is desired.

• Stock VS Air Flow Enhancements
• Interstate Driving LOOP Better Performers
• Interstate Driving LOOP
• RADIATOR Comparison
• FAN Comparison
  Flexlite 1314 VS Maverick
• Open/Closed Hood & Increased Air Flow VS Radiator Change
• Radiators VS Increased Air Flow
• Water Pump Pulley
  Stock VS ’81 Fairmont 6 cyl.
• Radiator / Crossmember Gap
• Redline Water Wetter
• Electric Fan Comparison

Variables Tested

Radiators

• Stock
• Griffin Single row Aluminum, Single pass (1 1/4″)
• Fluidyne, Single Row,Triple Pass (2″)
• FX Single Three Row Single Pass (1 7/8″ )
• CX Core Four Row, Triple Pass (2″)
• CX Core, Four Row, SinglePass (2″)

Pumps

• Stock stamped steel paddle
• Milodon Hi Vol, #16230 (Fits Tiger but requires longer mounting bolts, causes fan to be closer to radiator than other pumps, inlet close to fan belt)
• Stewart Hi Vol Stage 1, #16103, Mfg. claims 41% incr. vol.

Pulleys

• Stock: 5 7/8″ Diameter
• About 1978 to 1982 Ford Fairmont 6 cyl: 5 3/16″  Diameter (Pump hub should be pressed on 1/8″ further than stock location. Pulley fits standard Ford 5/8″ shaft.. Pulley hole must be enlarged to 1″ if used on a stock Tiger water pump hub)

Stress cracks emanating from mounting holes on Tiger water pump pulley are becoming more common. The problem is acerbated by the addition of increased radial loads from alternators, air conditioning, etc. Reinforce the hub in this area or change to a Fairmont hub, which already has the proper reinforcement.

Shrouds

• Stock
• Custom, fully enclosed: Fabricated from “Junk Yard Dog” Ford Taurus by Chuck King

Fans: Electric

• 10″ dia, 4 blade, Summit equiv # SUM-G4910
• 12″ dia, 10 blade, Perma-Cool # PRM-19008
• Other “Junk Yard” specials (See airflow data)

Engine Driven
(After-market fans fit 5/8″ Ford water pump shaft. They require enlarging to 1″ if mounted on a stock Tiger water pump with a 1″ hub.)

Stock Alpine I-II & increased pitch

• Stock Alpine I-II & increased pitch
• Stock AlpineV & increased pitch
• Stock Tiger
• Flex-a-lite #414 14″ diameter
• Flex-a-lite #1314 14″ Diameter
• Imperial #221615 15″
• Diameter

Derale #17015 15″ Diameter


Maverick 6 cyl & increased pitch
• Ford C9DZ-8600-A Maverick 6 cyl. Cut down to 14″ diameter
• Ford C9DZ-8600-A Maverick 6 cyl with increased pitch

According to John Grunsfeld, the astronaut on the Hubble telescope repair, owning an Alpine qualifies one as an important life experience for astronauts. Check out segment this recording of Car Talk. The reference is at 5:50seconds. [ed note: I think the original broadcast of this show was on June 6, 2009]

Here’s the link to the rest of the converstations with and about John Grunsfeld and the Magliozzis.

by Tony Inzana

The Sunbeam Harrington LeMans, which some of you remember appeared in our newsletter as a Road & Track road test reprint several issues ago, arrived officially on the English motoring scene in December, 1961, at the Earls Court Motor Show of that year.

Take a normal Sunbeam engine and chassis, tune the power unit to a knife’s edge and add as pretty a body as you’ve seen–and the result is the Sunbeam Harrington LeMans, the loveliest-to-lock-at new small car to grace the roads of this country for sometime…

One of the surprises of the show can be seen on stand 74a. It is the Sunbeam Harrington LeMans, which, say the manufacturers, ‘comes straight from one of the worlds greatest motor races’.

And in fact, it did. The Alpine’s and for that matter, Rootes greatest success in competition took place at LeMans in 1961. The results of that one race not only brought Rootes an indeterminable amount of publicity, it introduced as a direct descendant, a new British sports car–the Sunbeam Harrington LeMans.

Based on the Sunbeam Alpine which won the Index of Thermal Efficiency Award at the 1961 LeMans 24-Hour Race (considered the 2nd highest award to outright victory, it recognizes the car ,with the highest overall average mileage for the duration of the race at the highest average speed). The 1.6 litre Harrington LeMans had an entirely new body styling and a highly tuned, high performance engine. It was manufactured and produced by the specialty coach builders of Thomas Harrington, Ltd., of Hore, Sussex, England with the approval of the Rootes Group.

The LeMans evolved from a series of coachwork conversions and modifications that Harrington was performing at the time on the Alpine. These examples, known as Harrington Alpines, were usually customer ordered and correspondingly designed to specific individual purchases.

They offered the flexibility, comfort, styling, and increased cockpit area of GT Coupe to Rootes’ existing Alpine roadster body and chassis. This was accomplished by having a customer purchase a standard Alpine, arrange either through the Rootes dealer or privately, through Harrington, for the car to be delivered to Harrington’s (which in fact was also an independent Rootes dealer). Once there, working to customer request, the car would be converted to accept the chosen GT body styling, either opening rear window hatch with the trunk spare wheel access inside or fixed hatch with trunk access through a half-lid located below the rear window. In some instances, both the hatch and lower lid would open for access. The framing for these modifications was completely of wood with the actual body material being fiberglass. The mating of the roadster steel body and, the fiberglass took place along the waist/rear fender line of the Alpine. Back as far as the windscreen ‘A’ pillar and the doors, the construction was pure Alpine. By overlapping the steel with the fiberglass from-aft of the doors at the ‘B’ post and running the roof line down into a newly designed sharply tapering tail the resulting effect was both structurally sound as well as pleasing to look at.

On these earlier Harrington Alpines the rear fin was retained. It was from this style that the LeMans car came. The production cars were further available with optional engine preparation in three stages from 83 to 100 brake horsepower. In addition, the complete interior was redesigned and available with numerous options and combinations to the customer. Harrington accomplished everything throughout the conversion with the exception of engine tune which was consigned to George Hartwell, Ltd. of nearby Bournemouth. The Harrington Alpine was available to Rootes Dealers and was often ordered as a finished car to sell, as presented, to off-the-street buyers. Harrington themselves would offer cars such as these in their showroom having them available to sell as well as to display and promote their coachwork conversions.

It was with an eye to this obvious experience and success that Rootes chose Harrington to build the body for their LeMans Alpine entries of 1961. The LeMans cars, numbers 34 and 35, went one step further in design by incorporating recessed head lights and a molded wraparound lower grill and apron to the GT styled coupe roof and rear treatment of their sister Harrington Alpines. The finished cars are reminiscent in many ways, to the author, of scaled down editions of Aston Martin coupes of the same vintage.

The success of Number 34 is history as it not only won the Index of Thermal Efficiency but was 2nd in its class and 16th overall. The value of this success was considerable, both for the Rootes Group and Harringtons themselves; and it prompted the decision shortly afterwards to market a production version of the LeMans car. The result is the Harrington LeMans.

The LeMans differs considerably from the Harrington Alpine bodied LeMans Alpines that actually ran in the race. The body was restyled to better incorporate the roof/tail line of the earlier cars by removal of the fins. This allowed the rear fenders to blend more smoothly with the line of the sloping roof. Clusters of horizontal rear tail lamps on the cut-off back replace those previously mounted in the fins. The optional opening rear window hatch becomes standard, allowing for trunk/spare wheel access through the open hatch and deleting the necessity of the lower trunk lid. The opening hatch has a remote cable release from inside near the driver’s shoulder.

Inside the car, the normal seats were replaced by well made and shaped Mirco-cell bucket seats. Behind which are two very small occasional seats of the “GT” variety common today. The backrest for these seats fold forward to provide a greatly extended luggage platform that was impressive particularly for its day (you must remember that in 1961 the small GT sports car as we know it was non-existent and in many senses this was the first, well before the GT6 or MGB/GT and even the XKE). Beneath this compartment, and reached by lifting a trap door directly below the rear window, is the spare wheel, jack and other tools plus additional storage space.

Quality of workmanship was commendable considering the handmade adaptations necessary. The fiberglass roof is of a rough early type “grainy” fiber which is fitted and placed solidly and is free from movement. The result was quite attractive and offered a definitely more finished appearance compared to the earlier coupes and separated it, except from a direct frontal view, completely from the Alpine roadster.
The power unit of this new car, as advertised, was tuned to the “precise” specifications used by the Rootes Group for the car which lapped the LeMans circuit for 24 hours at an average speed of 91.4 mph for 2194 miles on a total of 122.5 gallons of fuel, with only 9, repeat 9 minutes off course for fuel stops. Its average consumption was 18 miles per gallon. The engine developed 105 B.H.P. at 6000 rpm at a compression ratio of 9.5 to 1 or some 19 h.p. more than the normal production of the Series II Alpine at 5000 rpm. The LeMans torque is eleven pounds above that of the Alpine at 4500 rpm instead of 3800.

The engine modifications involved were considerable. A special lightweight flywheel and competition clutch were fitted, and these were balanced as a unit with the crankshaft. Valve operation was controlled from a high-lift camshaft, and assisted through stronger valve springs, while the breathing was altered by enlarging and polishing the inlet and exhaust ports and changing the choke and jet sizes of the two downdraft Zenith carburetors. In addition the Laycock-deNormanville overdrive was available in modified form to operate on all four forward gears. Other mechanical features included a heavy duty brake booster supplied by Clayton DeWandre, larger front roll bar, and an oil cooler. The cars came equipped with Dunlop RS5 radial tires.

The interior was given deluxe trim treatment with numerous interior combinations available including 3 differently styled door panels, the Micro-cell seats were unique and special made for the LeMans, a Carloth wood rimmed steering wheel was supplied by Les Leston of England with a matching walnut veneer dash and gearshift knob.

O.K., with all this, why am I just now hearing about this Rootes entry to the wonder car contest of the early sixties? Who knows exactly, certainly the car wasn’t that far ahead of its time (note the previous mention to numerous GT introductions in successive years).. And according to the English releases, the car was destined for export immediately. One answer might be the price, originally marketed in England for 1495 Pounds, and over here at between 3995-4200 Dollars. In 1962 that would put it in the same league with Alfas, Porsches, Jags, etc. and considerably above Rootes own Alpine along with the MG’s and Triumphs. It was definitely bucking stiff competition in a market segment that Rootes was new to, but then again Rootes had always been forced to go against the competition with its more refined, less ‘roadster’ image sports car in the Alpine. And this was really quite a jump in styling, it was the first of its kind and had the benefit of its LeMans success.

The car didn’t lack for publicity as it appeared on the covers of Road and Track, Car & Driver, and Sports Car Graphic in this country. Initially the dealers were crazy to obtain the cars and yet why the void, why no cars now? As far as I can see this is probably the key, what it all came down to was on the basis of all this acclaim and notoriety, when the dust settled, there were just no cars to take advantage of it. People didn’t see and what they never saw they never bought. Except for dealer demonstrators and a small number of individual orders, mostly from U.S. servicemen who had seen the car while abroad, there just was no follow up.

Actually this same condition plagued dealers again under similar circumstances when the Tiger was introduced in New York 2 1/2 years later. .There weren’t any available to sell in light of the tremendous response given the introduction. Essentially then, the LeMans died on the vine. From initial production in October, 1961, of random cars from the Alpine assembly line to late 1962 only the above mentioned examples plus the magazine test cars appeared in the United States. And when deliveries could finally begin to be expected, the conversions were ceased in early 1963 without any apparent reason and even less publicity.

Automobile Quarterly gives a figure of approximately 200 cars produced, which appears to be supported by Mike Taylor’s new book on the Tiger. Low figures indicate possibly as few as 150-175 units. Existing numbers would be anybody’s guess. I would put the percentage of remaining cars at around 20%, optimistically, of those produced. There is also an undetermined additional number of Harrington Alpines to consider which were available concurrently with the LeMans in England through 1964 (or thru the Series IV Alpine), and there is one Harrington Tiger, (that we know of). In any case, a whole lot less were produced than either Rootes or Harrington, envisioned and -. not very many by any standard.

NUMBER: 67-44
DATE: 3-31-67
GROUP: Engine
SUBGROUP: Oil Pressure Relief Valve

MODELS: Alpine V, Minx VI & Arrow
SUBJECT: New Oil Pressure Relief Valve

A new steel relief valve assembly was introduced in production from the Chassis Numbers shown below, having a thick fibre sealing washer under the head of the relief valve.

Alpine V – B.395 012220

Minx VI – B.006 045731

Arrow – B.051 006069

Should you encounter complaints of oil leaks from this fibre washer, it is recommended that the existing washer, approximately 1/8″ thick, is replaced by a thinner washer, 1/16″ part number 5058200. After fitting new washer, tighten relief valve to 15 ft. lbs. DO NOT OVERTIGHTEN.

Check for any signs of damage to the threads of the relief valve and body; replace where necessary. This new washer will be introduced in production in the near future.

The new valve can be installed on up-to models by including the filter base, part number 5058202.

T. H. BULLARD
Manager – Service & Parts

NUMBER: 67-32
DATE: 2-22-67
GROUP: Clutch
SUBGROUP: Master Cylinder

MODELS: Alpine V & Minx IV
SUBJECT: Modified Master Cylinder Main Cup

A modified master cylinder main cup is now available which will correct problems of periodic loss of clutch in heavy traffic.

The new main cup can be identified by its manufacturer’s number 3842-424 which is on the cup.

All master cylinders, part number 1223548, and the new overhaul kits, part number 5044629, currently supplied include the latest cup, part number 5044628.

T.H. Bullard
Manager – Service & Parts

NUMBER: 67-28
DATE: 2-13-67
GROUP: Body
SUBGROUP: Windshield Water Leaks

MODELS: Alpine V & Tiger 260
SUBJECT: Windshield Water Leaks

As a result of a recent investigation of windshield water leaks, it has been established that, in the majority of cases, leakage was due to an inadequate seal between the windshield frame and the ‘A’ post trim which carries the weatherstrip to the door seal. Before carrying out any windshield removal, it is recommended that the following procedure be put into effect:

1. Remove the seven screws which secure the ‘A’ post weatherstrip to the ‘A’ pot trim plate.
2. Carefully remove the weather strip and clean off the ‘A’ post trim.
3. Drill out the two attaching rivets.
4. Remove the ‘A’ post trim plate. Clean off any existing sealer and apply an adequate amount of sealing compound to the windshield frame.
5. Replace the trim, riveting it into position and then replace the weather strip and seven attachment screws. Be sure that an adequate application sealer is applied between the rubber and the trim plate
6. Sealer should be applied at all cowl seams and cowl vent body seams.

T. H. Bullard
Service & Parts Mgr.

Rootes and Chrysler U.K. Passenger Cars

Download MSWord document of this file here
Get a PDF of this file here.

Printer friendly files available as below:

• Download the autocross classifications for Tigers and Alpines here
• Download the autocross classifications for Alpines only here
  
• Download the autocross classifications for Tigers only here

Autocross Classification Summary - Tiger

Please see the full rules for complete classification requirements

Autocross Classification Summary – Alpine

Please see the full rules for complete classification requirements

Another Shocking Story

by Dave Johnson

Finding shocks to fit the Tiger or Alpine is getting more difficult.

The original Armstrong Heavy Duty Shock had the following dimensions:

• Extended Length 12″
• Collapsed Length 8″
• Top fitting stud
• Bottom fitting 1 1/2″ ring with 3/8″ bushing sleeve
• No Dust Cover

There have been several shocks listed by other tech tips that can be modified to fit. I found that the Monroe GasMatic shock 5824 fits the specs with the exception that the sleeve is 2 1/4″ long with a 7/16″ bolthole.

I tried cutting the sleeve but found that it was made of hardened steel. Even if I could cut it, I would still have to enlarge the hole in the mounting bracket from 7/16″ to 3/8″.

Using appropriate size sockets, and a vise, press the old sleeve out of the old shock. A 1/2” inch pipe ‘T’ fitting was just the right thing to press the old sleeve into. It held the bushing in place but allowed the sleeve to be pressed out.

Using the same sockets, vise, and pipe fitting, slowly press the new sleeve out of the new shock. I used silicone spray to lube the sleeve as I pressed. I would press forward about 1/2″ and then release the pressure on the bushing. By looking into the pipe’s hole you can watch your progress. Stop when the new sleeve is just starting in the new bushing (about 1/16″). Switch from the socket to the old sleeve and continue pressing the new sleeve out. It won’t take long until you will have replaced the wrong size sleeve with the correct size old sleeve. Your shock is now ready to mount using the original bolts and bracket.

The trick is to use the old sleeve to push the new sleeve out. If you push the new sleeve out first, the hole in the bushing will collapse to about 1/4″. You’ll never get the old sleeve in the new bushing without tearing it.

FURTHER NOTE: If you have an emotional attachment to the original Armstrongs and don’t want to remove the sleeve, most auto parts will carry a 7/16″ by 1 1/2″ sleeve. But you’ll have to enlarge the mounting hole and use a 7/16″ bolt.

Editors note: The latest Monroe Gas-charged shock absorber that I have found that matches these dimensions is Part # 20814 and are called “GasMatic GT”. These shocks were originally designed for the Ford Pinto and Mustang II and may be sold under many other names.